For quite some time now there have been some terms thrown around by politicians and the mainstream media; terms that are inaccurate but have come to be accepted because of their overuse. The most common one is the term “assault rifle.” When asked to describe what an assault rifle is, those same folks won’t be able to come up with a cogent or even mildly educated description. Why? Most often it’s because they simply don’t know that much about firearms. The second biggest reason is because they don’t want to know that much about firearms. The third biggest reason is because, if they were educated, they’d realize that there’s no such thing as an assault rifle.
While there are certainly some firearms that are designed specifically for combat, not a single one of them is available for sale to the public citizenry in our country without an extensive background check and extra fees paid as a tax. Such weapons are FULLY AUTOMATIC, most often belt fed and aren’t really convenient for carrying around day to day. They are heavy, usually take two people to operate effectively and they aren’t concealable by anyone. Heck, most soldiers assigned to carry and use them complain about it.
There are also SELECT FIRE weapons which can be purchased by the public citizenry, but they also require an extensive background check and that extra fee paid as a tax. Some of the select fire weapons out there may be considered concealable but they are still far from convenient to walk around with and not easy to conceal without bulky clothing, extra bags, large briefcases, etc.
What I believe has driven folks to so readily use the term assault rifle is the fact that the much aligned “black rifle,” otherwise known as an AR-15 style rifle, looks similar to an M-16, which has been the common combat long gun for our nation’s military since the Vietnam War; about fifty years now. The newer M-4s are a variant of the rifle using the same or similar action. The differences between variations of the M-16/M-4 line can often be readily identified on sight, but to tell the difference between a late variant M-16 and an AR-15 can require you to look directly at the safety switch. On an M-16 that’s a selector lever because it lets you choose between SAFE, SEMI or AUTO/BURST. On an AR-15 you only get two choices: SAFE or FIRE.
While I’ll accept calling an M-16/M-4 a combat weapon, I still choke on assault rifle. Using the term assault rifle implies that the weapon has only one purposes and that’s to go on the offense and attack an enemy. Combat is a two way fight. It is composed of both assaulting forward and defending a position. It’s both offensive and defensive. I don’t know a single service veteran, most especially one who has seen combat, who would choose an AR-15, semi-automatic only weapon, to go into combat. Aside from the appearance similar to an M-16/M-4, the lack of a selector switch can be a big hindrance in the delivery of effective area or suppressive fire.
My point is that an AR-15 style rifle is NOT an assault rifle. While it can be used for defense or hunting, it was NOT designed for combat or for aggressively assaulting an enemy or his position. It’s my belief that politicians and mainstream media pundits use the term assault rifle because it makes people THINK of a weapon designed for combat and such implication supports their pro-gun-control stance. If they simply say “semi-automatic rifle” then it doesn’t sound as scary.
Why would they want to use a term that is intentionally scary even if it’s inaccurate? We’ll get to that in a moment. First, let’s talk about another term I’ve heard used that seems silly to me: killing knives.
Aside from the controlled use of fire and the use of blunt objects as a hammer, the development of the knife as a tool is probably one of the most significant advancements in the evolution of man. It first allowed us to more effectively hunt (spear tips are mounted knife blades when you think about it), cut our food into manageable chunks, form useful items out of hides, sinew, etc. and more. The knife allowed us a method of adapting the world around us instead of adapting ourselves to the world. It changed our entire outlook and capability. As such, the knife is a most useful utility tool.
Because it can be used as a weapon, it obviously has been. Bayonets have been used between enemy troops in combat. Swords have long been used on the battlefield. In contemporary times, punks and gang members have used knives as weapons when they can’t get their hands on guns (or the guns simply aren’t available). But to say that any particular design of a knife makes it a “killing knife” is simply silly.
Knives serve so many purposes that an equally large number of knife designs are available. A great many of those designs enable the knife to fold and fit in a pocket or pouch. They are convenient to carry and handy to have… but not everyone thinks you should have one. One media pundit I saw talking held up a very typical folding lock blade knife with a 4” blade and a clip to secure it in your pocket on one side. The blade had a design feature that allowed for one-handed opening and a spear point blade design. The media “reporter” held it up as an example of a “killing knife.” He pointed out how it was specifically designed to be concealable and small enough not to be seen until it was too late to avoid it when it was used against you. He commented on how common these knives are and what a miracle it is that there aren’t more homicides attributed to them. Apparently though, based on his statements and “evidence,” butcher knives and every other knife in your kitchen is perfectly harmless.
And that brings me to my final sensationalistic label for today; a new one I hadn’t heard until the most recent attack in San Bernardino; an attack now officially connected to ISIS (but let’s not go jumping to conclusions and call it a terrorist attack, right?) – “Assault clothing.” I have to admit complete perplexity at this one. Assault clothing. When I heard the term used by a news “reporter” and then repeated by several others, I had to wonder what nitwit had fed them the term. Several days later I’m still trying to figure out what “assault clothing” is.
You see, I’m not familiar with any clothing item, from any manufacturer, of any type, that is offensive in nature. For the life of me, as both a military veteran and a veteran of law enforcement service with over three decades of experience, I can’t think of a single item of clothing that is useful as a weapon (unless I first take it off to use it to strangle someone).
I understand and acknowledge that some items we wear decrease our vulnerabilities and help protect us FROM an assault, but I’m at a loss for identifying clothing that HELPS me assault someone more effectively. I understand that if I wear external body armor and a ballistic helmet, I look more like a soldier. I understand that boots can be part of a military uniform as much as they can be what I wear to go hiking. I understand that my favorite jeans, cut like carpenter’s pants, allow me the convenience of a couple extra pockets, enabling me to carry my cell phone more conveniently. I understand that those same pockets COULD be used to carry a knife or a spare magazine for my pistol. Somehow I suspect the news folks aren’t talking about carpenter’s pants, my jeans or the latest trend in outdoor footwear.
Not satisfied with the results they’re getting as they use incorrect terms to cast as evil all the weapons they don’t think the average person needs, they’ve now decided to attack a mode of dress that is favored by literally millions of service veterans, on- and off-duty law enforcement professionals, firefighters, EMTs, rescue workers and, sometimes, the manager at your local drug store (like my wife). What mode of dress? You’ve seen it. It includes pants manufactured by “uniform” companies: 5.11 Tactical, TRU-SPEC, VERTX and others. They are often seen in tan, black, OD Green, camo of some flavor and Navy blue. They have extra pockets to make it easier for you to carry everything from your cell phone to your pocket knife or even a flashlight and an emergency first-aid kit. How many media nitwits do you think even know that the first Royal Robbins pants (what became 5.11 Tactical) were designed for ROCK CLIMBING?
The shirts are made by the same or similar companies. They feature pockets, sleeves that roll up and have straps to button them in place, and places to carry your iPod or phone if you wish. They can be easily adapted for uniform use but are equally attractive as casual business attire.
And let’s not forget the boots. After all, we ALL know that ONLY soldiers wear boots, right? Oh, wait… I forgot; police officers do to. So that’s two groups of people, both who carry guns for a living, right? So anyone who wears boots is either a soldier, a police officer, or a “wannabe” who is just so itchy eager to carry a gun that feel compelled to dress like one of these warriors, right?
That is apparently what the mainstream media would like you to believe. The use of “assault rifles” to get the general public behind gun control hasn’t worked. The use of “killing knives” to justify the depression of an entire industry and rob you of the ability to carry around a utility tool hasn’t worked. They have to find something new to get everyone up in arms and increase their ratings so they can sell their available advertising for more money: welcome to “assault clothing.”
And, yes folks, that’s what it’s all about: increasing their ratings and getting more ad dollars. They do it by scaring people. They do it be claiming to have the best “experts,” most accurate information and latest updates. They do it by using sensationalistic terms that have no realistic meaning but sound scary. Sometimes they’ve even taken to proclaiming the pending hurricane… that somehow never materializes or ever reaches the coast – but aren’t you glad you stayed tuned! Understand that the goal of the “news” on television today is NOT to keep you informed and it is most certainly not impartial journalism. It is to make money; to gain advertising dollars; to win the ratings war.
Please don’t buy into the hype. If assault clothing were really a thing and even remotely an indicator of a person’s intent, my wife would have killed me long ago and I’d have been a mass murderer more times than any of us can count. Just because a particular clothing design is favored by off-duty law enforcement professionals, or used on-duty by any number of public safety workers, doesn’t mean it’s ONLY appropriate to those people or it should ONLY be used when they’re on duty.
Don’t buy into the hype. Let common sense reign. Oh, and if you’ve never worn a nice comfortable pair of “assault pants,” I encourage you to try them out. 5.11 Tactical… Warrior Wear (from BLACKHAWK)… Vertx… TRU-SPEC… go give them a try. With the exception of your favorite well-worn jeans, you’ll likely not find a more comfortable pair of pants.
Stay safe.
